The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as unsalvageable nonsense

Pranker[edit]

Pranker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no encyclopedic quality, and should be posted in Wiktionary. Tigerclaw81 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not encyclopedic enough, fails notability. Dwilso 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vandalism, unsourced, and made up. Recreate as redirect to Prank as the normal definition of pranker would be 'someone who performs pranks'. -- saberwyn 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Redirect to Prank. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest NW[edit]

ConQuest NW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable convention, no claims of notbility, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Udonknome (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest VEGAS[edit]

ConQuest VEGAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable convention, held every April since 2008, meaning, what, there has been one? No references to provide notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as it stands, and nothing in Google that can make it notable. 9Nak (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not seem to be notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, Unsourced, non notable neologism. Merge proponents could certainly add a sentence or two to customer relationship management with a soucr, without a merge. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer assisted selling[edit]

Computer assisted selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources exist. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]--neonwhite user page talk 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge with customer relationship management, an established buzzword which this is trying to supplant. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge with customer relationship management. Agree with Dhartung. As a marketer, I've heard of the term, but would always categorize it under CRM. PRasmussen (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, strongly: "a new emerging trend in sales systems," i.e. a non-notable neologism. Seems obviously promotional in intent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Orphaned article has blog editorial as its sole cite source. It's clearly a neologism. Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason. B.Wind (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A mention in CRM might be suitable, but I don't feel strongly about that.  Frank  |  talk  23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator after the article was speedied at author's request. Gwernol 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Bonneau[edit]

Shawn Bonneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An upcoming songwriter who has not yet achieved notability. Does not meet our criteria for notability of musicians. There are no independent, reliable sources that would allow readers to verify the claims made. The author removed the Prod notice without comment, though after adding a couple of references that do not meet WP:RS since they are neither independent of the subject nor published. The author appears to be the subject of the article and has a history of rather unpleasant vandalism. Gwernol 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Feel free to create a dab or redirect page as appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood's March Around Lake Lanao[edit]

Wood's March Around Lake Lanao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability and Verifiability in question. This is not a formal campaign in the Philippine-American War. See Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Special:Contributions.2FKennethjaensss for verifiability issues Lenticel ^(talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N. Significance would seem to be found in anything referencing this somewhere on the USDOD web, and there's nothing at all. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further see for example Named Campaigns of the Philippine Insurrection (as the Army continues to officially call it). Nothing about a Wood and the only commanders discussed in relation to the lake are Baldwin, Pershing, and McCoy. Pershing's dispatch of his mopping up effort makes no mention of this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even in a rather detailed look at Wood's military career in the Philippines it is barely noted. Sorry, I can't link to article as it's listed as spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzonman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, there may actually be something here. The march was commanded by Pershing under Wood's roders. But it is really a campaign, not a battle, and is inclusive of at least the fort at Bacolod, Lanao del Norte[8] (I think that's the right one) and the Battle of Taraca.[9] It's also known as the Marahui Expedition after the intended target/rally point. Possible redirect or dab page? --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions at WP:TAMBAY regarding this plus it's unnotability. -- Felipe Aira 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions, apart from RGTraynor's, are completely unpersuasive in the light of the various policies and guidelines cited in the discussion.Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox[edit]

Roblox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

File:Builderman.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:BigRoblox.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable website, no claims of notability, no reliable sources. I would have tagged this for db-web, but it's been here for quite a while with a lot of editors. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not have any reliable sources, per WP:RS and fails WP:WEB for notability. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources in the article and no reliable sources coming from google, doesn't demonstrate notability. Someoneanother 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although searching revealed a huge amount of Youtube videos, blogs, wikis and forums on the subject, I couldn't find a single reliable source to meet WP:N or WP:V. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 143,000 google hits, 4000 youtube videos and 300000 accounts should be enough to establish a minimal level of notability, above that of many other videogame-related articles in WikiPedia. There's precedence demonstrated in similar entries such as Adventure Quest -- whose references are circular and Star Sonata, with similar quality references and which has 1/3 the audience size of ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, an article cannot be kept purely based on the argument that other articles exist. There are articles on WP which should exist and do not, just as there are articles that shouldn't exist and do. It's why an article is discussed for deletion it is examined on it's own merits, based on the source material available. Additionally, Google hits and Youtube video counts are a form of Search Engine Test, which are not recommended for examining concerns surrounding notability or verifiability. It is why coverage is requested in the form of third-party reliable sources in order to assert this. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that level of internet activity does speak to a non-zero level of cultural relevance. My point in drawing attention to the other entries isn't that I don't think they should have articles, but rather that the guidelines that work well for WikiPedia at large may not be entirely suitable for emerging online games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.151.58 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of incorporation were filed in Delaware in 2006, if we have to we can change the entry from being about ROBLOX the game to being about ROBLOX, the studio that makes the game ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — Shedletsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Third party link/reliable source: http://www.altosvc.com/team_anthony_lee.html
  • Comment- Previous entry was wrongly attributed to me. It was in fact added by User:Antialiasing. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you on the right AfD here? What does that link have to do with Roblox? Corvus cornix_talk 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, if you click on Portfolio -> Current, Roblox will be in the list. See http://www.altosvc.com/port_current_roblox.html
• Keep Third party link: http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/minisite/team.html under Dr. Morgan McGuire and http://www.thealarmclock.com/mt/archives/2007/02/sfs_virtual_wor.html and http://fucc.blogspot.com/2007/02/roblox.html Palmfreak (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — Palmfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • What makes those reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flatworld page has a chunk of Morgan McGuire's CV copied into it. He's a prof at Williams who has worked on ROBLOX. His CV is here [[10]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shedletsky (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't make it a reliable source as to the website's notability. Corvus cornix_talk 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the articles you've started, you don't know anything about online games. So what's it to you? How did you happen to come across this page? I'm suspicious that you may actually be a competitor who has ulterior motives here, or some other vested interest that you have not disclosed. --Shedletsky (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to assume good faith. I never even heard of Roblox until I saw this edit, which violated Wikipedia's copyright rules, and so I removed the edit and read the article, at which point there were no reliable sources, I went looking for some and couldn't find any, that's when I did the AfD. I have nothing to do with computer games or any other vested interest, as you would have been able to tell by looking at my edit history. Corvus cornix_talk 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please remember that when engaging in debates to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. Additionally, please note that knowledge of the subject does not restrict an ability to analyse the content of the article to meet Wikipedia's policies for submission. The references listed in this AfD fall short of what is required as a reliable source. Sources should be from third-party organisations unrelated to the subject. Please see WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N for more information. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the whole article has no refrences because I wrote almost the whole article myself. B y the way, the user above me, Sheldsky, is actually the game developer. And I know he isnt an imposter because he was the one to create the article on Roblox. Anyways, I wrote the whole article using my own game knoledge, so I dont know anyway to give a refence to that. But after I wrote it, many people decided to vandalize it and change the article into a stub. But I digress, I dont know how to refrence the article, and I cant find 3rd party sources. --Briguy9876 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QED. Corvus cornix_talk 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. You wrote "Keep" up front, but then proceeded to point out that the article has potential issues with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. Pagrashtak 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Isn't this a full on admission that the article is not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable? Holy smokes. This is practically a textbook case for a deletion-worthy article. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that there Aren't any reliable third -party sources. Most are so tiny they dont help, or they were written by another user, such as this article now and the biggest one on Great Games Experiment. I know that I said that I wrote it, butI said Keep becuase there arent any 3rd party sources that can create the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what would YOU consider a "reliable" source, Corvus Cornix?

Have you read WP:RS? Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, you might as well delete half the articles on this site. --69.210.112.167 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, Corvus. The article has alot of authors. And what you dont know, is that about 80% of those edits didnt help the article at all,and 15 of the rest were minor. Now, I say this because thats alot of vandalism, for something that has hardly any media attention, nor has lot of 3rd party sources. THats why I say for the article to keep, purly because the game is popular,and the article is popular, so removing it would be bad in my eyes. --Briguy9876 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ROBLOX Has over 300,000 members, but isn't allowed to have a wiki article? I guess ROBLOX doesn't have many 3rd party things, but it is new and hasn't yet had time to collect such things. It is growing rapidly, and if you delete it now it will be ready to be re-made very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.120.40 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 70.177.120.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Correction You can't vote "strong keep" and admit that the article cannot be supported by 3rd party resources. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THeres just one more thing that we can point out: Since the few 3rd-party sources we do have gives enough info to make a stub , cant we at least save the article and turn it into a stub IF we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to ask the people for deleting this page what would constitute all those rules (not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable) in the context of an online game? I'm not exactly sure how someone would go about finding a strong source that would support all this. Things like magazines and books generally don't include things about online games. In addition, how could we verify that the facts were true? I can understand how Wikipedia needs to know it has factual information, but the simple fact is, we lack that material. But does that mean we shouldn't exist until someone decides to write a book about it? Palmfreak (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement of verifiability is not negotiable. Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to negotiate. I am simply asking for clarification. Palmfreak (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Another source: http://connollyshaun.blogspot.com/2008/02/roblox-redux.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmfreak (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will repeat. Have you read WP:RS? Blogs are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment People voting keep are admitting this article breaks every rule and still vote to keep it. The rules are not context sensitive. The rules for notability, reliable research, verifiability, and neutral point of view apply to all articles regardless of whether it's politics, movies, history, or games. Game articles aren't compared to each other. Game articles are compared to Napoleon. If you want to create a wiki for a random online flash game, there are other gamer exclusive wikis with much lower standards than wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Alright, I know, I know. But there comes a point when the tide is high enough to lift the boat past the WP:IAR threshold, and I think this is one. No, there aren't any third-party, independent, published sources that I can find, and yes, the article should be edited to conform to POV standards. But ... we're talking a subject that has over 800 unique Google hits [11], and that's huge; by contrast, "United States of America" has only 930. Plainly there's a significant buzz out there.  RGTraynor  16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, we can't write an article without verifiability, and we can't have verifiability without third-party sources. How do you propose to overcome this? Pagrashtak 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe external traffic stats would help? We're somewhere around the 30000th most visited site on the internet, according to compete.com and alexa. For comparison, any number above 10000 would be considered a "hit". [Compete.com Roblox Rank ~35000th] [Alexa.com Roblox Rank ~25000th] --Shedletsky (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be addressing notability (although please note that notability is distinct from popularity). I'm talking about verifiability. Pagrashtak 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I'll bite. Let's concede that the article needs to be trimmed dramatically (as it would were there a dozen copper-bottomed sources). Beyond that, what do you challenge? That the game exists? The basics of what the game is about? That it plainly has a lot of people interested in it? That it sports a respectable Alexa rank? WP:RS does not forbid (and, indeed, concedes) that self-published sources can be used for certain elements. Plainly some of the elements are sourceable: the existence of the corporation, that it is rated "E," for example.  RGTraynor  19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would game reviews by prominent websites/rating sites work? 63.204.151.5 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • For sure. That's exactly what a reliable third party source is. So long as the website was prominent and it wasn't just a user generated review, it would establish notability, and provide verifiable information about the game. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RG, I'm not challenging anything, I'm simply stating that we can't write an article if there are no reliable third-party sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In your keep statement you say you can't find any third-party sources, so I'm asking you to justify your statement against Wikipedia:Verifiability. Pagrashtak 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. That you don't like my rationale is plain, but I'm not going fishing for another one just because of that.  RGTraynor  13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above delete !votes. While I'm of the opinion that WP should allow for more articles than it does, unless reliable, secondary, sources can be found, this article fails the policies of verifiability and reliable sources. And just my opinion, but 25k Alexa is nothing. --Izno (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability via verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic. Agree with Izno that 25k Alexa isn't really that impressive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as WP:OR. Sandstein (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Natural Systems[edit]

The Theory of Natural Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Let us just say "original research" and leave it at that for this long article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clearly OR. Nakon 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An excellent example of original research. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. GlassCobra 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. Makes me wonder if this isn't a paper submitted at uni. PRasmussen (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Will Geist might like to know of fora that cover this topic - comments on the talk page please. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Sandstein (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Ballestrini[edit]

Veronica Ballestrini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable singer. Only sources are unreliable (myspace), primary, or trivial. She has not charted a single yet, and hasn't released an album yet either -- nor has she done anything else that meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Was previously deleted back in September too. Oh yeah, and I realized that it says she charted on the Music Row chart, but that seems to be a small indie chart, even if it is national in scope. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, possibly speedy as re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. While she has been listed on a chart, it doesn't seem a particular noteworthy one. Beyond that, though, there's no indication in any sources I can see that indicate she passes MUSIC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not on a notable label, no chart history. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sorry, there's not much there there. The source most frequently cited is a local bi-monthly free promotional paper, the so-called "Music Row country chart" has a pathetic thirteen unique Google hits [13], leaving one to wonder how and by whom this "chart" is tabulated, the label is only a year old and I could find not much in the way of albums to its credit. Beyond that, could this be a previously deleted article? The creator is an SPA for whom this article and related ones is the sole Wikipedia activity, but while this article was created in March, there was an image of Ballestrini uploaded by the creator in August 2007.  RGTraynor  16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Music Row is a country music chart. MusicRow.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.183.234 (talk) — 76.18.183.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep: It is a great article. The Music Row chart isn't a big chart, but it is still a chart, and people still listen to those radio stations. She does have over 5 million views on her Myspace page, so people may wonder or want to know more about her, and they may search her on Wikipedia. I say definitly keep. —Preceding unsigned

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FK Makedonija 1970 Berlin[edit]

FK Makedonija 1970 Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

File:FKMakedonijaBerlinFlag1991.GIF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable local football club which doesn't appear to be involved with anything that would pass WP:N. PeterSymonds | talk 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FK Makedonija 1970 is a traditional football club in the multiethnic municipality Kreuzberg of Berlin and is the second oldest football club in Berlin founded by immigrants (first being Türkspor, established in 1969). so it is a notable football club. Cukiger (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not a professional club; thus it is not notable. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No policy states that only fully professional clubs are notable, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on WP on semi-pro teams, however this seems to be a really low-level completely amateur team, whose only supposed claim to fame is that they were not quite the first German team to be founded by immigrants........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BanRay 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It would help if we knew what the 'Jugoliga' was - that would make deciding this team's notability a lot easier. I haven't found anything on Google yet. Bettia ^(talk) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the name I would estimate that it is a local league run by immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. GiantSnowman 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article specifically states "The league was established by Yugoslavian expatriates and collapsed when that country broke up." It's not very surprising that Google turns up nothing on a local recreational league which folded over a decade ago ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a non notable band. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilizer (Music Breakbeat UK)[edit]

Stabilizer (Music Breakbeat UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable music group. Because of the name, I had trouble looking for sources, but the searching I did turned up nothing. Further, the article's external link redirects to some other artist's page. GlassCobra 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York Central Ball Hockey League[edit]

York Central Ball Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article purports to be about a non-notable league, however the contents reflect a particular team. Team name is a hard search due to Shoeless Joe, but amid false positives there's no evidence of the team's notability either. Claims, yes. Evidence, no. Creator is an SPA with a COI. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, no references, article even has a slight POV. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable league, seems like a hoax to me. I've heard of Sydney Crosby's jersey, never heard of Rob Berenguer's jersey which is surprising if Rob's jersey is selling #2 next to only Sydney's. Sure it is. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's not a hoax, but we're talking a local beer league. Fails WP:ORG going away.  RGTraynor  17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well that would explain Shoeless Merchandise was flying off the shelves & with great reason. "Paolo Pannozzo", "Rob Berenguer", "Anthony Notarfonzo" & "Steve Celebre" jerseys became every kid's stocking stuffer. In fact Rob Berenguer's jersey was # 2 worldwide in Sales next to Sydney Crosby's of the NHL. , someone was drunk. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources, unverifiable, POV, OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable. Feel free to create a redirect to a "List of minor characters in..." article, that's how we usually deal with such articles. Nothing sourced to merge here, though. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Weser[edit]

Otto Weser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional character without evidence of notability given; article is entirely unsourced. Tagged with {{notability}} since February 2007; redirected to article of broader scope in November 2007; redirect deleted per CSD in March 2008, but later restored; reverted to full article in April 2008. I'm sending it here to sort the matter out. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Merge into Left Behind series article. Renee (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable character in a NY Times bestseller book. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable character in real world terms. Merge per Renee. JuJube (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Left Behind (series). No claim of real world notability in article; non-wiki ghits aren't coming up with notability. Valid search term, so redirect. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Google returns about 140 outside of Wikipedia which appear to be only passing mentions. Very unlikely that notability can be established or that real-world context can be provided. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Mother is a Tractor[edit]

My Mother is a Tractor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable vanity-press book. The author paid for publication through the notorious Canadian vanity press, Trafford. Google kicks up only blogs, author's own website, and wikimirrors. Utterly fails WP:BK. And this is also very disturbing: Someone with an Australian ISP has been going around adding wikilinks about this book to a weirdly wide variety of articles: [14]. The book's author lives in Australia. Hmm. Now someone will have to volunteer to go through all of those articles and remove his awful spam. I'm going to start on it now. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Paper45tee (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity-press book from a non-notable author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not from the folks who brought you My Mother the Car Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although the title gave me some laughs, there's zero evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to assert the notability of the book; while it doesn't bother me that it's published via a vanity press, it does bother me that there's nothing written about it outside of blogs and the author's own website. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Herostratus (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N in every way imaginable. ArcAngel (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author notes: I was directed to this page for comment. If you choose to delete, fine. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes.

• I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
• It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
• Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
• It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
• This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
• As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
• Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore I saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening ladies/gents and good luck. Comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Nklar has posted this commentary to a number of us !voters here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I think we get his point TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean, there has been s p a m m i n g ??? Somehow I find that hard to believe... Qworty (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • • The funny thing? I've read his book and it is a good one about the teaching life in Japan, however it's just not notable. If we weren't being spammed, I'd probably quite like a conversation with the author TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks like we can converse with him on nine different pages. It's considerate of him to make it so easy. Qworty (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Got your message Qworty and apologies to all above - I'm not really familiar with how wiki works. I saw entries on people's pages and presumed that's how it's done. The curse of a newbieNklar (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ann Catholic Church (Bartlett, Tennessee)[edit]

St. Ann Catholic Church (Bartlett, Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Coverage limited to false positives and events (weddings, funerals, etc.) that took place at the church. Sole claim of being one of the largest in the area, is dubious notability. Churches tend not to be notable and this is no exception. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual local churches are generally not notable unless they have some exceptional reason to be. No evidence this one does. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. If we keep this article, we might as well have an article for every church and religious building in the world Ijanderson977 (talk)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui_Cho[edit]

Seung-Hui_Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet the standard of WP:BLP1E, as the subject of the article has no notable accomplishments other than his involvement with the Virginia Tech massacre. From the policy, noted in multiple situations (including from Wikipedia legal and ArbCom cases) as being key to the project: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:ONEEVENT was intended to keep people who do silly and stupid things out of the encyclopedia, not mass murderers who receive international coverage. Again and again we have these forced rituals. Why? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep through WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The massive media coverage of the VTech shooting definitely ensures that Cho, the central figure, gets an article. Easily passes WP:BIO. GlassCobra 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-referenced and far too long to be merged into the main article. We should avoid glorifying this person, obviously, but deleting the article would do more harm than good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I know that there are people who are concerned that we are somehow "honoring" a murderer if an article is written about that person, but sometimes people want to know more about Lee Harvey Oswald or Charles Manson or Seung-Hui Cho and they look in an encyclopedia for the answer. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. He is not only the purporter of the biggest school shooting, but is responsible for the biggest single handed shooting spree in United States history. Reliable sources thus cover him in more than one context. WilliamH (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a well-sourced biography of someone who is undisputably notably. The driving force behind WP:BLP1E is to ensure that articles on living persons are NPOV compliant, and don't give undue weight to one event. However, in this case, we have a substantial amount of biographical information that lets us say more than "this person went on a shooting spree". Bfigura ^(talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and speedy keeep. Subject is ridiculously notable. Even though most of his notability can be tied to one event, there is a lot of coverage about the subject beyond the simple acts that he did; i.e, his history, psychological issues, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Highly notable, the perpatrator of the worst school shooting in US history and linked from a featured article, as well as mentioned internationally should have an article. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and Speedy Keep. If Seung-Hui Cho is not notable, then let's delete John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and everyone else who is primarily limited to one single incident of crime. While not every criminal perpetrating every major incident is notable, sometimes the personality behind the incident is such that notability becomes established. The coverage of Cho, with his behavior and his psychological issues, established his notability. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per everyone, and also because I think it's dangerous to read our policy on biographies of living people as applying to content on people that aren't, you know, living. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If his article was short, he could be considered to be merged back into the VT shooting page. But his article is not short, it is also not bad (quite the opposite), so this article should obviously be kept. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, whole article was a copyvio added by one user.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Anne's Church, Corstorphine[edit]

St Anne's Church, Corstorphine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local church lacking sources required for WP:ORG. Also copyvio of somewhere "we can observe" but I can't find the source -- only partially from here TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect there probably are sources in the architectural press. Anyway, the real problem is that the text is copied from this, the kirk's website. That won't do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant copyvio of http://www.stannescorstorphine.org.uk/history.html and http://www.stannescorstorphine.org.uk/history2.html Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Doric[edit]

Yuri Doric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable artist who's exhibited his work in a handful of places but whose real "claim to fame" is that he once made some collages, then paid the notorious Canadian vanity press, Trafford, to publish a book of them. Clearly, these are not the qualifications for a notable article, as he fails WP:BIO and his vanity book fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources.Renee (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the choice of a book's printer/vanity publisher should be a consideration unless the work is being presented as anything other than self published. Significant references or reviews by mainstream or (more likely) reputable industry/trade pubs meeting WP:RS would contribute to establishing notability for this person, but how the book got published shouldn't matter unless it's notable in itself. However, as Qworty says, there are no independent published sources (at least none easily found online) to establish artist's notability. Flowanda | Talk 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable so far. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NES-on-a-chip[edit]

NES-on-a-chip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Non-notable piece of electronics; unverifiable article. Chardish (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some better sources can be found. They probably can, but I don't see them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete If this gets deleted, can someone userify it for me? Also, If there were an article about CMOS console remakes, this would belond there. It doesn't appear to me to be the case. If someone has a better search string or knows where the article is, it belongs there. Some of those remakes truly are notable (although the ones I'm thinking of literally encompass more than one chip and so might not count). Protonk (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stiven Petruševski[edit]

Stiven Petruševski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer, has never played for a professional side and therefore fails the notability guides for sportsmen. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. On a side note, is the club he plays for even notable? GiantSnowman 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline, and Google comes up with little but local details. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FK Makedonija 1970 Berlin. PeterSymonds | talk 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. PeterSymonds | talk 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete player fails WP:Bio#Athletes --Jimbo^[online] 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:N and WP:BLP

• Delete per nom. BanRay 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Can we find any references to back up these Honours? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Championships of extremely minor youth leagues won when the player was as little as 7 years old? I doubt it very much. And somehow I don't think that having won such honours would qualify him as notable anyway. And if it does, I'm going to create an article on my workmate's son whose team just won the town under-11s championship..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Sole delete preference was WP:PERNOM, topic has non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Skomorokh 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs[edit]

Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT as these are all proposed spin-offs that never were actually developed. Seems more a page for rumors and what ifs than encyclopedic content. Mostly sourced from various Buffy fansites and other unreliable sources. The two notable ones already have main articles that could be mentioned in summary style in the main Buffy article without this extra step. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons mentioned above - Chardish (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while there are some sources to fansites which should be better-sourced if possible, sourcing also includes such solidly reliable sources as TV Guide and the BBC. I don't agree that the article amounts to "rumors and what ifs." Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only part sourced from TV Guide is the Spike movie, which would be better served as being a short paragraph in his article as part of his reception section. Collectonian (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the parts sourced to the BBC include parts of the Ripper section and the SLayer School section. Other sources seem reasonably reliable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as organized, notable, and well-referenced article. The topic as a whole is covered in published sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is perfectly notable. Dismissing established sites that contain direct, detailed quotes from the people involved as 'unreliable' is unwarranted. These are clearly more than rumours (a significant amount of work has gone into several of the potential spinoffs).Further references could be added (e.g. today's BBC interview with Head contains a new reference to 'Ripper'). Rdwperl (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as not notable per WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Goosey[edit]

Simon Goosey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

He has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE as there's no evidence he's ever played at the fully professonal level and he is of 'local fame' TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline, but you could argue his contribution to his field is "enduring" and as you say there are some RS. As a football fan on the other side of the country I know who he is, so it's not just local fame.The-Pope (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was a direct quote from the article, "Mornington Football Club in the Mornington Peninsula Nepean Football League of local fame for having kicked over 1,500 goals including 10 seasons" (emphasis added) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete semi-pro footballer at best. Never played in any fully professional competition. The rather overblown comparison to Gary Ablett is risible. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE as not being a professional player, and the sources provided about him aren't especially compelling. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep, although he fails WP:ATHLETE, the guideline there is meant for us to figure out when we can be lazy, and presume the person notable, even if it has not been shown WP:N is met. There are however several mentions in newspapers, and though most are trivial mentions, I believe this just scrapes by WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Mattinbgn & Lankiveil. Five Years 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result was delete as non notable. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC). Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Playa (wrestler)[edit]

The Playa (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestler with only two references. iMatthew 2008 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent sources appear to exist. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with the others, there is no assertion of notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Third-Party reference included. He is mentioned near the bottom of the article, which was published by The Herald (South Africa). Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a TV listing page, that is not a good third party source. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have been unable to find any sources establishing his notability. Multiple searches have turned up nothing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Nikki311 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler)[edit]

Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestler with one reference. iMatthew 2008 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any independent sources, never mind any reliable ones. Also, article doesn't assert notability. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've tried a variety of searches, but I haven't managed to find any information at all. Notability is not established. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Nikki311 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While it's difficult to call two opinions a consensus, I agree that the policies and guidelines referred to in the opinions are applicable and persuasive in this case. Also, while certainly not grounds for deletion, the almost complete lack of third party WP:V sources after over a year and a half of development is also a factor. Pigman☿ 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Sing Se[edit]

Ba Sing Se (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was previously nominated for deletion, but was kept with no consensus. I believe the article should still be deleted. Though, as some users argued, the article discusses some notable points with relation to the show (Avatar: The Last Airbender), this article is way too detailed. When only a short summary would suffice, whole sections are dedicated to encyclopedic information. For instance, there is a three-paragraph section dedicated to the royal palace, when only one-paragraph describing what happened in the royal palace would suffice. In addition, the article is nowhere near properly sourced. In fact, it could be argued that there is a lot of synthesized original research in the article (though I will not particularly make this accusation, as I have not fully analyzed the article).

To place what I just said in better terms: A lot of the article does not fall under WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:FICTION; A lot of the article does fall under WP:DUE; There are few reliable sources and even fewer third-party sources; The article might have some WP:SYNTH. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject has been notified of this discussion. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article absolutely fails WP:PLOT and WP:FICTION. There are two pieces of sourced real world content, neither of which provides real world context for Ba Sing Se without violating WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is about real world China and makes no mention of Avatar. Making the claim that the two are directly connected is original research. The other bit of real world content is about Avatar as a whole, which does not justify an separate article under WP:N. In this case not only are we lacking sources with sufficient real world content about Ba Sing Se, we're lacking sources that even mention Ba Sing Se. The rest of the article is overly detailed plot, so there's no point in a merge. Jay32183 (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Tape[edit]

The Red Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

prod request disputed. Notability concerns per WP:Music being a mixtape Wolfer68 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. None provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Can Get Them for You Wholesale (film)[edit]

We Can Get Them for You Wholesale (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There just aren't enough sources to write an article on this film. We can't evaluate it through reviews, we can't provide context, all we can have is the limited information which is here. If you've seen the film, you know more than we do. If you haven't see the film, we can't tell you anything about it which doesn't amount to advertising. Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with and redirect to We Can Get Them for You Wholesale, the source material of which this appears to be a non-notable adaptation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info was added to that article but consensus was it was extraneous. It was then that a separate article was created. Do we include information on all adaptations of works in an article on that work? Hiding T 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, thanks for (not) mentioning that previous discussion (which, such as it is, appears to be no more than two comments by the same unregistered editor). If consensus is against a merge, that's fine by me, but it was a reasonable thing to suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for forgetting to mention that in the nom. I hope you accept that it simply slipped my mind. Yes, there was one anon, but I took silence of other editor's self included, to indicate assent for the removal. I may be wrong in that assumption, granted. You test consensus best through asserting it. Hiding T 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to have been made by an amateur film company [15] and brings up no results on google other than this Wikipedia page. (Note that there are results on the short story that the film is based on.) Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was struggling to find an IMDb entry for this when I tided it up, and based on comments above it doesn't seem to be notable. Or redirect, as also mentioned above. Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of stand-alone notability. Wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention at the short story's Wikipedia article, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable minor project which hasn't received significant coverage. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hattingh[edit]

Peter Hattingh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no external sites, Google search turns up a MySpace page... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links added by Eastmain. Still NN? 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not seem notable. Not much more I can say. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- WP:COI Derek Andrews (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article about an individual that doesn't contain any personal information doesn't meet WP:RS, I think. This seems to be a coatrack for his companies. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as COI/OR. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found some external links and added them, but I'm still not very happy with the article. --Eastmain (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. I don't think the source of any of those links or references are sufficiently removed from the subject to be independent or notable. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per earlier comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a bit of a no-brainer to be honest. I myself am an internationally published poet. Who isn't? GetDownAdam (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. I'm not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spammy-sounding fluff w/ no sources to back it up. -- Naerii 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've tagged it for WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck murphy[edit]

Chuck murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems non-notable, as far as I'm concerned. 75% of the links are red. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No proof of notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The way I see it: The guy is a non-notable person who is the creator of two non-notable websites/companies. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't know if the company might be notable -- I tend to doubt it -- but an article about an individual that doesn't have any personal information about that individual doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:N. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Chuck is non-notable. Redirect to Charlie Murphy. Nick Graves (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is Charlie Murphy actually known as Chuck, or is that just an assumption? --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just being goofy. Nick Graves (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Smartwebs is marginally notable and Murphy could be covered in a future article on his start-up, but he isn't individually notable. Also, Geogre's Law applies. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability, probably could have non-controversially speedy deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Red links aren't a deletion reason. (No opinion on the notability). --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, if most of the projects this guy's been involved with are red links, that does seem to support the presumption that he is non-notable. Nick Graves (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Laverne Grinds[edit]

Gayle Laverne Grinds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. The minimal notability is strictly connected to the unusual aspects of the subject’s death. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Signficiant coverage in multiple, reliable sources is needed. I don't see that here. Nick Graves (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overall, she just makes the mark for notability, but the parts of the article that make it notable have no sources. Seems a bit far-fetched, though if there are sources anything is possible (well, almost anything). — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only reason people would look this up is because her unusual death inspired a scene from Nip/Tuck otherwise I believe this needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belazekial (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylloc Server[edit]

Sylloc Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not state it's importance whatsoever, or any kind of encyclopedic relevance. Tigerclaw81 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete couldn't it go speedy? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mention whatsoever of any notability at all. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Just forget the AfD, this article falls under WP:CSD#A1. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. It should go to AFD, because we know what the article is talking about. The only question is whether the subject is notable enough or not to deserve its own article. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear notable enough to deserve its own article, per WP:N. I could not find any reliable sources that covers the subject. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The article was less than 20 minutes old when it was AfDed and included {{underconstruction}} when they created it. The odds are extremely high that they plan to expand it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I'm with JeremyMcCracken. I've never personally heard of this and I don't personally know if it's notable. But a quick google shows the topic is at least legitimate. It's not pushing an agenda or an advertisement or a POV. You could have waited at least a few weeks before trying deletion, if not a few months... no? Let the creator of the article have his/her chance to make it work. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As per Gazimoff. I don't want to stonewall this one. Randomran (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After giving the article a fair amount of time, I've done a search for sources and can't find anything to help with notability. Article appears to be an entry for a quite mundane game server. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Penny Game[edit]

Two Penny Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. — ERcheck (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — non-notable game. There are 11 unique Google results and none is relevant except for this Wikipedia article. ... discospinster _talk 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, not even claiming to being anything other than a game someone made up at one school. Don't understand why it's not a speedy. Canthusus (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per WP:NOT. No signficiant coverage proving notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh boy, another game made up in school one day. Delete. - Chardish (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia isn't for non-notable games made up in school one day. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NFT. I believe this has already been deleted once - speedy or otherwise. Booglamay (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what's here, and use title as a redirect to Two-up which is a notable game sometimes called "the two penny game". Grutness...wha? 00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually, I used to play exactly this game when I was at school, so (at the risk of committing an act of original research) I can verify that this was not in fact invented in 1996. AndyJones (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont sports network[edit]

Vermont sports network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability. Website has Alexa rank > 1M. — ERcheck (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Creator is new editor whose edits solely revolve around promoting VSN. — ERcheck (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Elisabeth Fritzl[edit]

The result was Keep, closed early per WP:SNOW. Notability is clearly established by the massive international coverage of this case. There may at some point be a case for renaming the article, but that does not require an AFD decision, and there is clearly a strong consensus to keep this article. Discussion of any proposed merger or renaming should take place on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Fritzl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BLP, subject's only claim to notability is being the victim of an alleged sexual crime. Yes, it's published in major papers, but out of respect for the dignity of the victim, I'm recommending Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep If this goes, there are plenty more to remove (including Kampusch and pretty much all pages related to criminals and their victims)CreamCrackers (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:BLP1E is a long outdated guideline. Wikipedia in actual fact is a newspaper amongst many other things. By now, all the things lots of oldtimers have listed wikipedia "is not", would mean we would soon have to delete about a million articles, including Natascha Kampusch. ephix (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above/WP:BIO1E. Until this deletion happens, I've added the {{current}} tag. Booglamay (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is already being compared to the Natascha Kampusch case. The article will just have to be recreated in a few days. This is much more than an alleged "sexual crime". HtD (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I can't believe this has been nominated for deletion when there is an article on Kampusch on Wikipedia. Unless there is an influx of similar stories, this needs to be kept. If it must be deleted then we will need to delete Natascha Kampusch as well. And the article on Priklopil. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a lead story throughout the world. --Tocino 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an article on the event. The existence of one article (NK) is not a reason for the existence of another. Kampusch has gone on from the kidnapp event to perform other media roles which are worthy of documentation. If, in the future, Fritzl does this then no doubt she will get an article. Furthermore it has emerged that there are other people who were kept in the house; Elisabeth may not yet turn out to be the most prominent person within this story. --Pretty Green (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being at least and see how things develop. This is no different in many ways than other articles which detail miseries that have happened to various people.I think this may be best served with an article about the event rather than the person but we can see what happens as things develop. To suggest deleting it on the grounds of respect for the victim would be akin to asking the various media covering the event to stop reporting it and to purge their archives. I know it's not Wikipedia's job to act as a news agency but this event is likely to be examined or studied in future, so I believe there is merit in recording it here. IrishPete (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep/merge. May best be rewritten into an article that covers a chronological history of the event more than the person, but deleting this content certainly isn't going to bring us any closer to that goal. For the time being, it should be kept, at least until something substantive can be written regarding the event. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E, privacy concerns, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP There are many crime victims who have articles on this site (see Kidnapped Children, Hostages, Kidnappings, among others) whose notability is derived from being a victim, and this one is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILuvTea (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe iprtance depends on the crime. go read the article. DGG (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP -- It is important for others to be aware of what is going on. As someone already mentioned, there are plenty of other crime victims stories published on Wikipedia, why should this one be any different?
• Strong MERGE The particular event is notable and deserving of inclusion in a larger article on kidnappings, etc. This particular article is WP:BLP1E. 75.1.243.237 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge , maybe keep as is, but certainly don't delete. This is comparable to Kampusch's situation. Noble Story (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This even is especially notable due to its comparisons with the Kampusch story and the length of time involved versus the Kampusch story (24 years of captivity versus 8 years along with her children being held captive as well). There will be many more details revealed in the coming days and it is beat to keep this article on it's own so there is a coherent place to put all the information. Merge can be discussed later (though I believe even after all the facts come out this story deserves it's own entry). Diemunkiesdie (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Taking aim at the first call for deletion, there are a lot of other people listed in Wikipedia who's main claim to fame is that something happened to them. And they should be here. This is an encyclopedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, as the aim is to provide information. We should not judge the information we provide as to it's worthiness to be included, but only on it's accuracy and readability, and any judgment on either should only be made with the aim of improving the article. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For now. I am all for deleting articles which are merely a news item, but this is one of the most bizarre stories of the late 20th/early 21st century. The nominator grossly misstates the facts by claiming it is merely a one time sex crime. It is alleged incest over a 24 year period of imprisonment, probably a world's record. It has had widespread coverage so far. If it is deleted as a mere current hot news story, and it turns out to have the long lasting significance it seems to have, we could certainly re-create it. Defies belief. And the alleged imprisoner's wife had NO IDEA there was anything hinky going on. Edison (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to let you know, I understand the enormity of the crime we're talking about. My objection is that (a) the story is less than 24 hours old, and (b) we don't have any real standards for inclusion based on type or magnitude of crime involved. I know it's newsworthy and it's attracted a lot of attention, but then so did the Corey Delaney article (which caused no end of drama. I decided to play it safe and recommend deletion, and I stand by my reasoning. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BIO1E is not really relevant, this article is about an event, not a person. It just happens the person's name is the best name for the article. SeanCollins (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although I would consider a move to Joseph Fritzl, given there are numerous victims and only one perpetrator. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Also I do wish folks would be so considerate as to cut out the insider jargon that permeates pages such as these. WP:BLP1E? WP:BIO1E? Whatever happened to plain English? Peripatetic (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, a) it's tiresome to type out "biographics of living persons who are known for only one event" every time, b) it's a wikilink so people can figure it out if so inclined, and c) Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I can read, Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! states that it is best to avoid using too many acronyms, and isn't a justification to use more. I know that Articles for Deletion isn't the ideal place for new members of the community to begin, but we could probably do more to help make this easier to understand, especially when the deletion notice is (currently) as big as the entire article. --Stozball (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is good practice to type out an acronym in full, with the acronym in brackets, on the first use in an article. This isn't too painful, it assists those who may not know (and shouldn't have to look up), and is general practice in all 'serious' writing. And it's good manners, too, unless you wish to discourage new active mebers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heenan73 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A point- I would recommend always wikilinking these (e.g. type [[WP:BLP1E]] rather than simply BLP1E). These are already wikilinked at the top Peripatetic, so follow those links to see what the posters are referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Also, the names are not published in most news papers, as far as I can see. mabahj 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and consider the possibility of renaming the article so that it clearly is about the crime, and not about one of the victims. There are after all, at least eight more people involved in this bizarre story. The relevant inclusion policy here is more likely to be NOTNEWS than BLP1E, but even NOTNEWS does not rule out the possibility of articles on current events. (NOTNEWS mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", something this is not.) Apart from the very horrific circumstances which has turned this case into a major news story, the case also has called into question the role of authorities which should have stopped this, so it's an event with a significant aftermath and investigation. Clearly, care should be taken to write the article in a conservative, and non-sensationalist manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this article is deleted, then the all articles on people who have been imprisoned and abused should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.168.104 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand the nomination, and its worth discussing. But as an internet based encyclopedia, some times the speed at which we can react to news and create an article, which against definded standrads may seem trivial; needs to be judged against other similar stories and then reviewed after a bit of time. This potential scale of this one needs a bit more time before it can be reviewed properly. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. meets notability criteria in spades. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:BLP1E is irrelevant here, except as an argument to rename into the name of the story rather than the ame of one individual involved. But the affair - to my knowledge - does not really have a name.--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we wrap up this discussion? Can we remove the deletion tag from the page, based on the rather strong majority of keeps above, and the lack of specific suggestions of something to merge with or rename to?--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Amstetten kidnap case of 2008, as a specific suggestion. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not really suitable as the alleged case took place over 24 years and only came to light in 2008, so to have a year in the title would be misleading. Also not so much a kidnapping as an imprisonment. Perhaps The Fritzl Case‎ would be better. But this alleged crime began with the alleged imprisonment of Elisabeth, so I think it's the best place to start. We can look at merging later once more facts are known. HtD (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I second User:Noe's suggestion. Merging it to Amstetten will be confusing a few years down the line so if anything that page should be merged into this one PRasmussen (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Amstetten kidnap case of 2008--GazMan7 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep Other than plain old fashioned censorship, there is no basis for removal. It's not a nice story, but 'niceness' is not a useful editorial criterion.
• Merge with Amstetten kidnap case of 2008 Tovojolo (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP absolutely! --78.54.65.59 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under whatever title is appropriate for the case as a whole; we have a (now fully admitted) case of kidnap, confinement, incest, neglect, and who-knows-what-else over a 24-year period. In western Europe, people. Absolutely notable, to my mind. Radagast (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic case of Privacy of Names. Besides that, according to §7 Mediengesetz (Austrian Media Law), publishing such details can end in fines of up to 20000 EUR. --90.146.131.50 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then there are a lot of Austrian, British and other European media outlets that are going to be fined, not to mention the Austrian police who have released details of the alleged crime and confession! HtD (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is nothing more than a news event for now. If, in time, notability rises rather than falls, then we can evaluate a new article and consider what its title should be. Powers ^T 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Deli nk (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Possibly rename at some point. Half the things in Category:Kidnapped children were just "news stories" at one point.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP very relevant and valuable. --Mike551 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ack KleenupKrew [[User:A